3 total
Clear-cutting woodland in a natural environment zone is not a normal farm practice.
The applicant sought a determination under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act that his clear-cutting of five acres of woodland, which contravened a municipal woodland conservation by-law, constituted a normal farm practice.
The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the land had been returned to a pre-existing agricultural use.
Furthermore, the Board held that because the subject property was zoned Natural Environment (NE1 or NE2), agricultural uses were not permitted, precluding a finding that the clear-cutting was a normal farm practice.
Qualified privilege defence requires trial where factual disputes and motive remain unresolved.
The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendant arising from a public response letter published after a newspaper article criticizing the defendant’s investigation into farm animal conditions.
The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the publication was protected by qualified privilege, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to strike the defence.
The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the defence of qualified privilege applied or had been defeated by malice.
Numerous factual disputes concerning the underlying investigation, the accuracy of the statements made, and the defendant’s dominant motive required credibility assessments that could only properly occur at trial.
Both motions were therefore dismissed and the issue of qualified privilege left to be determined on a full evidentiary record.
Adjournment of appeal granted pending related decision; costs for procedural non-compliance denied.
The appellants, an unincorporated association of dairy producers and three individuals, brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of their appeal of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's 2009 quota policies.
The respondent opposed the adjournment and sought costs, arguing the appellants had failed to comply with a prior procedural order.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment pending the release of a decision in a related appeal concerning the 2006 policies, finding that the outcome of that appeal could significantly impact the present matter.
However, the Tribunal imposed strict conditions on the appellants to proceed promptly once the 2006 decision is released.
The Tribunal declined to award costs against the appellants, noting that costs are rarely awarded in public administrative hearings and the respondent's preparation efforts would not be wasted.
